Rice and the realism test

Condoleezza Rice's first moves as US secretary of state are drawing unusual attention for various reasons. Her own personal achievements mak...

Condoleezza Rice’s first moves as US secretary of state are drawing unusual attention for various reasons. Her own personal achievements make her a figure of interest. But, more importantly, the world is trying to figure out the trajectory of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. President Bush’s recent speeches, including the State of the Union address, seem to echo the familiar tough line on the international issue of immediate concern: US policy on Iran. Rice’s statements, however, seem to suggest that the Bush administration might not be quite as unilateral about Iran as it was about Iraq. Part of this may be because a secretary of state is likely to speak a more diplomatic language. Whether there is substance behind this remains to be seen. The question is whether Rice as secretary of state will help evolve a more nuanced foreign policy than she did as national security advisor.

Rice’s detractors will be sceptical. She was, after all, the principal intellectual architect of the doctrine of preemptive war that is the corner stone of US security policy. Rice, as her testimony during the confirmation hearings demonstrated, was also associated with the Bush Administration’s evasiveness on a number of issues. There was also a remarkable lack of candour to her testimony to the senate, on issues ranging from the Al-Qaeda to Iraq. Therefore it is unlikely that she will take Bush’s policy in a new direction. Any change in US foreign policy is likely to be dictated by the changing circumstances of world politics than by Rice’s intervention.

At the same time, Rice is well equipped to bring a little more sophistication to US foreign policy. Her predecessor, Colin Powell, was too much of an outsider to seriously impact the Bush administration. Rice, on the other hand, enjoys President Bush’s confidence. She is more of a seasoned realist than a crusading idealogue. Any modifications she suggests to the current line of the administration’s thinking will carry all the more weight. Rice is therefore well placed to perform a historical role as secretary of state. It was very clear that the Bush Administration was going to change the rules of the world order drastically and Rice has been associated with that change. But there is now an opportunity to create new forms of engagement with the world that do not rely on moribund institutions like the UN. If Rice can ensure that a commitment to America’s core interest can be made more compatible with different forms of multilateralism and an avoidance of war, she will have done well.